Whether or not the technology, hardware or expertise existed at the time of the initial release of the product and for some reason, was not included in the original debut of that product?
The relevancy issue relates to customer fairness, product value and reliability and whether the product was released prematurely. If it was released prematurely, one hopes that the manufacturer would provide an upgrade path at minimal or no cost to the customer.
The reason(s) could be it was too expensive to implement to hit the desired price / point target, certain hardware was not available or was in the testing phase, or new tech was discovered, developed or implemented after the product was released that significantly improved SQ. There are probably other pertinent reasons that I'm not aware of.
One personal experience I had in the distant past was with a top of the line Tandberg cassette deck. Within the first year, I had to send back three times to be serviced because the tape transport kept failing. I eventually got rid of the product at a significant loss.
Hope that helps.
Yes, a much clearer explanation of what you're after.
I think we need to be careful with hindsight and passing judgement. They could have ... it should have... I would have, etc.
As reflected by this forum the market is in constant churn. We know this. You seemed to focus on Audio Research - the briefest of looks at their product history show they release lot's of products in various lines and price tiers. And people buy them. From ARC's perspective,this trickles down older models to those who maybe could not afford them when new and thus introduces their products to new audiencem. As Jack suggests, it also keeps their brand before the public while depicting themselves as 'moving forward' making progress and being innovative. It keeps them in business and sustains their employess. That's a model that works for many of the higher volume, higher capitalized companies.
Sometimes technology used in one model or type is later used in a different model or type - trickle down. Rather than introduce a wholesale change across the board to all lines, a company will see how it plays out over time before making a larger commitment, for example to a parts order. That's rational. Which model gets the change first may make it seem, in hindsight, like it could have been introduced earlier in other models. If a change is made quickly, then it can seem like the manufacturer was holding back - in hindsight.
Change introduction usually gets staggered. Each release, new model or revision or upgrade requires planning, new marketing materials, new dealer training, maybe new packaging. That's sometimes more than a small shop can handle, and we tend not to see the same frequency of change from smaller manufacturers. Though that's not universal. Occasionally a smaller manufacturer with weak or poor marketing may think a new model is the only way they can stay in the public eye. I see that more with cable makers.
Should manufacturer's hold back a release to possibly include some new feature, waiting for the completion of testing, or parts arrival, etc? Or should they go ahead and introduce revisions later on? In hindsight, from the customer's perspective. "I would not have bought model 6 if I'd known that two years later they would introduce model 6a." Yeah, I read those sort of comments. But again, in many cases We Know there will be new models, revisions and upgrades coming down the pike.
Do some manufacturers plan out revisions and upgrades? Yes of course they do. Are there times when they have everything now that they plan for a later upgrade. Yes. If that 'business model' works for them, that's good imo. I'd rather have more audio manufacturers - successful manufacturers - than fewer. Is an ideal world one where we make a single purchase and its for life? I actually think you can come close to doing that today though it can be expensive and you need to be sure of your choice.
Each of us picks a spot in time to make a purchase. Do the increments between changes sometimes seem too short - well they do to the fellow who bought six months before the next revision. He may think it's 'unfair.' Is it? Personally, though we may recognize his feeling, I don't think that question makes sense. Did he make a 'bad choice' - apparently not to him at the time he made his purchase - only in hindsight might he think that. What are you going to do? Well, we always have the option not to buy. Some people say, "I only buy every other generation."
Then there's the issue of slip-streaming - beyond scope here. Micro can write about that.
